Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32384922›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2020

Logbooks alone are not enough: initial experience with implementing a logbook for medical students in a clinical internship in gynecology and obstetrics.

Sebastian M Jud, Susanne Cupisti, Wolfgang Frobenius, Sigrid Benn, Andrea Winkler, Sophia Antoniadis, Matthias W Beckmann, Felix Heindl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sebastian M JudDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. Sebastian.jud@uk-erlangen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8894-2785
Susanne CupistiDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Wolfgang FrobeniusDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Sigrid BennDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Andrea WinklerDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Sophia AntoniadisDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Felix HeindlDepartment of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21-23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLogbooks are being increasingly widely used as a means of improving medical education and further training. They will in all probability continue to be mandatory in the Practical Year (PJ) in Germany even after the upcoming amendment of the Medical Licensing Regulations (ÄAppO). However, there are different approaches to their design and use, and these are also currently undergoing considerable change. This study for the first time examines and discusses the influence of logbooks on students' evaluation of a gynecology internship.

methodsThe study was based on a well-established two-part 1-week internship course, with initially unstructured morning classes on wards and duty areas, along with precisely planned afternoon classes with skills training by peer teachers and seminars supervised by duty-exempted physicians. The postgraduate lecturers were prepared for the introduction of the logbook in a special course, and the aim was to optimize morning classes by introducing learning objectives adapted to the respective locations. The effects over 38 weeks of practical training were examined in evaluations by 235 prospectively group-randomized students with and without logbooks (n = 166 and n = 66, respectively; three datasets were not evaluable).

resultsIn the cohort comparison, the logbook group responded significantly more positively toward the internship at the start of the course (P = 0.046). In the final evaluation, however, medical supervision during the entire internship was rated significantly more poorly (P = 0.007). The logbook cohort also considered that guidance based on learning objectives was significantly worse, as was the extent to which wards and duty areas were prepared for the students (P = 0.001 and P = 0.029).

conclusionsIntroducing a logbook to optimize clinical teaching in internships may raise expectations that cannot always be met. In addition to adapting the learning objectives to a general framework that is less favorable in comparison with the Practical Year, the least that is required appears to be simultaneous and continuous mentoring of the lecturers, as well as an increase in staffing resources.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalGynecologyInternship and ResidencyObstetricsFemaleGermanyHumansMaleStudents, MedicalGynecologyInternshipLogbookTeaching

Identifiers

PMID32384922
PMCPMC7206670
OpenAlexW3022453777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.